MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evidence-based approaches to childhood stunting in low and middle income countries: a systematic review

2017· review· en· W2610326746 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Muttaquina Hossain, Nuzhat Choudhury, Khaleda Adib Binte Abdullah, Prasenjit Mondal, Alan A. Jackson, Judd L. Walson, Tahmeed Ahmed

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Disease in Childhood · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicChild Nutrition and Water Access
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGlobal Affairs CanadaDepartment for International DevelopmentNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchNational Institute for Health Research Southampton Biomedical Research CentreStyrelsen för Internationellt Utvecklingssamarbete
KeywordsMedicinePsychological interventionContext (archaeology)SanitationEnvironmental healthHygieneBehavior change communicationGrey literatureImplementation researchNutrition EducationService delivery frameworkHealth promotionPromotion (chess)Public healthMEDLINENursingGerontologyService (business)PoliticsPopulationHealth servicesPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: We systematically evaluated health and nutrition programmes to identify context-specific interventional packages that might help to prioritise the implementation of programmes for reducing stunting in low and middle income countries (LMICs). METHODS: Electronic databases were used to systematically review the literature published between 1980 and 2015. Additional articles were identified from the reference lists and grey literature. Programmes were identified in which nutrition-specific and nutrition-sensitive interventions had been implemented for children under 5 years of age in LMICs. The primary outcome was a change in stunting prevalence, estimated as the average annual rate of reduction (AARR). A realist approach was applied to identify mechanisms underpinning programme success in particular contexts and settings. FINDINGS: Fourteen programmes, which demonstrated reductions in stunting, were identified from 19 LMICs. The AARR varied from 0.6 to 8.4. The interventions most commonly implemented were nutrition education and counselling, growth monitoring and promotion, immunisation, water, sanitation and hygiene, and social safety nets. A programme was considered to have effectively reduced stunting when AARR≥3%. Successful interventions were characterised by a combination of political commitment, multi-sectoral collaboration, community engagement, community-based service delivery platform, and wider programme coverage and compliance. Even for similar interventions the outcome could be compromised if the context differed. INTERPRETATION: For all settings, a combination of interventions was associated with success when they included health and nutrition outcomes and social safety nets. An effective programme for stunting reduction embraced country-level commitment together with community engagement and programme context, reflecting the complex nature of exposures of relevance. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016043772.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.081
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.081
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.009
Bibliometrics0.0250.019
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.125
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.200 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations187
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Disease in ChildhoodSame topicChild Nutrition and Water AccessFrench-language works237,207